I don't post topics often and couldn't decide where this would go, but I figure it'll raise enough controversy to warrant this section.
Caveats up front, this is a blog, not a scientific report, and it's from the Huffington Post.
TL;DR summary: Other models of addiction (disease model, chemical dependence model, etc.) fail to explain why certain groups administered legal or illegal drugs fail to become addicts. Specifically, drugs were commonplace among US soldiers in Vietnam and hospital patients are regularly given opioids, including morphine and what we call heroin, yet when returning home the former had much lower usage/addiction rates than would be presumed from their use in Vietnam and the latter has a virtually non-existent addiction rate (note: this appears to be specific to hospital-administered opioids rather than self-administered as by a doctor's prescription).
The proposed idea is that people are using drugs and other addictive behaviors as amelioration for something lacking in their lives, which the author suggests is comfort and social bonding.
The title is annoyingly click-baity: The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think Excerpt of the article behind the spoiler.
New Model Of Addiction And Recovery
|
New Model of Addiction and Recovery
Without reading the story, it is an unfortunate truth that people do tend to try to "escape" from something and if there is an opium / hallucinogenic drug available, rather than an actual exit, people do (not always because some people are extremely anti drug) use these to escape.
I guess this hinges on whether you believe people will perceive they are stuck in a situation with no prospect of escaping and when presented with a "way out" so to speak will take it. Honestly I can see some truth to this with my albeit limited Psychology background, would be interesting to see if people want to believe it is solely a chemical addiction, whether it be a genetic predisposition or a humanity thing or whether they believe it is solely due to the environment and this feeling of being trapped and or missing something, or whether they believe it is a little of everything. I do think pigeon holing a condition as being due to one issue only is short sighted and would hope that no one would ever actually believe "one size fits all" is going to cut it on this sort of thing, especially on mental illness/addiction. This isn't very new information the fact that just using an addictive drug won't make everyone who uses it an addict. A lot of factors come into play such as life experience environment trauma family and social support mental health issues someone's core belief system coping skills life skills. Drugs are a symptom of the addiction there are many things to consider when talking about why someone is using drugs. Not one addicts the same as the next sure there are similarities but each person is different. Family history or leaned behavior are other factors to take into account. Reasons for becoming addicted are numerous as are treatment methods. If someone has grown up with strong copying skills strong positive family and social support they probably are less likely to even try drugs. I personally haven't met one addict who thought they would become addicted when they start using.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs explains this simply enough.
One need, safety, is where I think the motivation for the drug use in the article took place. Heroin makes you feel content and sleepy which would fill that need. After the soldiers returned home, they no longer had to fear their immediate danger and the need for safety became filled. Like Conagh said, there isn't a one-size-fits-all/most for this kind of thing, as there are lots of factors we can't account for. Like how a person reacts to other stimuli as opposed to the drugs, their own social circles (are all their friends druggies?), etc. Cerberus.Conagh said: » I do think pigeon holing a condition as being due to one issue only is short sighted and would hope that no one would ever actually believe "one size fits all" is going to cut it on this sort of thing, especially on mental illness/addiction. There probably are other factors at play than merely being upset, of course. I have some family members who have overcome a habit (not surprisingly the ones with a close support structure) and others who have been using one thing or another for decades (and they're the ones who seem to have few to no social ties). What I've seen of programs like AA is the success of their patrons seems to be exclusively a function of the social atmosphere of joining their cult rather than their magic list of steps. That's not to say there isn't some value in most of what the 12 steps suggest, especially in terms of mending relationships that were probably damaged before addiction entered the picture, but it may be misattribution of causation. Also, just a reminder, addiction means a lot more than just chemical substances, although they do typically have the highest profile. I had a fellow chatting me a little while back and every time we did he'd mention his latest winnings at the casino and, not for nothing, I distanced myself the same way I'd distance myself from someone who talks about getting drunk every night or being on a first-name basis with his cocaine dealer. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Cerberus.Conagh said: » I do think pigeon holing a condition as being due to one issue only is short sighted and would hope that no one would ever actually believe "one size fits all" is going to cut it on this sort of thing, especially on mental illness/addiction. Chemical addiction is the easiest one to take a close look at, by no means was I excluding other forms of addiction however the above report seems to focus on chemical based i.e soldiers in Vietnam taking substances etc. Shiva.Onorgul said: » What I've seen of programs like AA is the success of their patrons seems to be exclusively a function of the social atmosphere of joining their cult The AA I believe doesn't actually attrition itself to the fact that it's "12 steps" are the corner stone to it's success (Publically I imagine they do) social cohesion and networking provide support and a feeling of safety which as Aldari outlines.... Asura.Aldrai said: » Maslow's hierarchy of needs explains this simply enough. One need, safety, Explains this quiet well, joining a group that doesn't judge you and is simply trying to help you, does make you feel safer (herd mentality etc.) and is probably the main attributing factor, so I think we agree on this point. Shiva.Onorgul said: » I distanced myself the same way I'd distance myself from someone who talks about getting drunk every night or being on a first-name basis with his cocaine dealer. See, this is something you and I differ on, while I respect your decision to not socialize with people of this nature, distancing yourself from a sufferer of addiction simply increases their likelihood of continuing addiction as explained above it weakens or has a detrimental effect on their potential or existing support structures, this is of course from a clinical view point, from a personal one, I would do the same. Shiva.Onorgul said: » The rats with good lives didn't like the drugged water. They mostly shunned it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs the isolated rats used. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment did. I figured most everyone understood this lol. There are more things to consider than what is implied in the experiment also. Even a movie star who would be seen as someone who has a grand life can fall under the pressure of fame and it's responsibilities. Coping with the stress by altering their mindset.(Edit: and that is obviously very simplified) It's an endless discussion as... Asura.Lilliy said: » Not one addicts the same as the next sure there are similarities but each person is different. Cerberus.Conagh said: » See, this is something you and I differ on, while I respect your decision to not socialize with people of this nature, distancing yourself from a sufferer of addiction simply increases their likelihood of continuing addiction as explained above it weakens or has a detrimental effect on their potential or existing support structures, this is of course from a clinical view point, from a personal one, I would do the same. Would you knowingly start a relationship with someone who appears to have a problem? It's a curious dilemma to consider. My choice and the choice of my friends whom I discussed this with was to stay away, but in light of this, maybe we were wrong. Everyone is going to have something. If they don't have an addiction, they have an overbearing mother or 30 cats or student loan debt or terrible morning breath. There's no such thing as that perfect romance story person. But knowing how difficult it can be to step down from an addiction problem particularly, it's frightening to want to start there. On the other hand, everyone choosing to avoid, based on what this article said, is going to deepen the issue. So do I have an ethical responsibility to intervene myself into his life? And what if it turns out that I'm either not what that person needs or, at least, not enough? I'm not convinced that lack of social bonding is the sole cause of addiction, though that appears to be the tack this blogger takes, because I know people who appear to be addicted yet have a decent social structure. They have a really shitty job, though, one that barely supports their habit, much less anything else. I certainly can't be the one to step in and fix that problem given I'm suffering the exact same issue. What are the limits of social responsibility and individual liberty? Portugal seems to have found a very good option in that it socializes and employs people with addiction problems. I'm hoping it goes beyond that to include people with criminal records and other disadvantages that have a habit of snowballing when left ignored or, worse, legally treated as lepers. I should research more now that we have 15 years of data. Colorado has done fairly well with its first year of decriminalizing one substance. Asura.Jezzus said: » I figured most everyone understood this lol. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Asura.Jezzus said: » I figured most everyone understood this lol. Nurture vs Nature. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Would you knowingly start a relationship with someone who appears to have a problem? It's a curious dilemma to consider. My choice and the choice of my friends whom I discussed this with was to stay away, but in light of this, maybe we were wrong. You are touching on the ethics of your actions and whether you should intervene in someones life who has what could be considered a high risk factor. Purely from an altruistic stand point, yes it would be great if we tried to incorporate these people into our social structures/networks etc however from a practical or even pragmatic stance, this potentially isn't viable. The real issue in including someone like this into our lives is the hidden factors, when you take on a new friend, you take on their baggage and their known associates. This is the critical part, what if that means their drug dealer comes into your life trying to find them, and this then has an impact to your safety? or the addict themselves starts things with your other friends, family, loved ones etc and causes a detrimental effect upon them? These instances confound the issue as to whether we should accept these people into our networks to provide them with assistance, or whether we should exclude them all together? The AA system is a good medium for this, solely as it is addicts helping addicts and creating an established group, with assistance where required, the people within this structure have lived, and are in the best position to know where the potential pit falls may be in helping each other, but also know that they themselves may impose the same issues, thereby negating the issue altogether. This then brings us to a new branch of thinking. Is enough being done for groups such as the AA or is there more we could do for these establishments while keeping ourselves at a safe distance? Asura.Jezzus said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » Asura.Jezzus said: » I figured most everyone understood this lol. Nurture vs Nature. It's not even as simple as this. Nature would indicate that people have a pre-disposed "addictive personality or genetic make up" however the case studies with Vietnam and US soldiers shows this is not really the case. If assuming that nature by itself is not a strong enough factor, but is potentially a contributing effect, then we need to look at the instance of nurture. No matter how good of a parent you are, you can not control every interaction your children have and there are potential stimuli everywhere/sources of abuse (This is another are which I don't care to delve too much into) that we as guardians/parents/overseers etc can not possibly control all the time, at one point everyone though Bishops and Priests would be a safe place to leave children, this is obviously not the case. Nature vs Nature is in itself a rather weak stance really in such instances, as it assume one is right or over riding of the other, I'm afraid that the situation is far more complex than that. If you had a Biological Immunity to Every Drug on the planet and they provided no "buzz" then yes, Nature wins, but this isn't the case. Then you have twins who for all intents and purposes have the same upbringing (friends and networking again is the issue as we can't measure or control these variables) but one twin may do drugs and the other may not, or they may both do them but only one becomes an addict (there are plenty of instances like this). Your environment and social standing do to some degree have an impact, and then the stresses and level of responsibility could be attrictioned to a weight. In my dissertation I touched on a scales model rather than the A typical models of Addiction. You add a weight to every factor i.e Nature, stresses, Work, Childhood issues, trauma, social networks. You then have positive on the left (no addiction) and negative effects (Addiction) on the right. You then have to assume an arbitrary number for the impact of each stimuli and its importance (which is where the points of contention come from) and then use this to work out if someone will become an addict or not. This however I felt over simplified matters, or potentially overcomplicated it, as although a certain aspect may seem inconsequential to myself, to someone else it may be the corner stone of their mental well being and have a far greater impact on their life than any model could hope to quantify. I think the best way to describe this is to compare it to quantum physics, the more we try to isolate and measure an object the harder it becomes to do so~
[+]
Cerberus.Conagh said: » Is enough being done for groups such as the AA or is there more we could do for these establishments while keeping ourselves at a safe distance? With the lackluster success rate of AA in spite of the noise it gets, I'm going to assume that it is reasonably funded and supported but would be curious to know how the alternatives are doing. One monolithic option emphatically has not worked, which seems obvious when stated that way. Beyond that, I think we, here meaning the US since that's the country I know, could do a lot more to assist things outside the recovery group. Most people with addiction problems acquire a criminal record somehow and that basically torpedoes earning potential, especially if any jail time was involved. And there's the issue of how much damage prison does in and of itself. A co-worker of mine can't stand to be alone as a result of having spent several years in prison and I consider that to be a laughably mild side-effect. Even without a criminal record, most addictions will result in financial problems and these days even a bad credit history can bar you getting a decent job. So focusing on reducing/removing those barriers, both for people with addiction problems and others whose circumstances would probably incline them towards substance abuse, seems a wise course. Pardon my cynicism as I say that trying to sell that idea to the American public would be political suicide, though. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Even without a criminal record, most addictions will result in financial problems and these days even a bad credit history can bar you getting a decent job. So focusing on reducing/removing those barriers, both for people with addiction problems and others whose circumstances would probably incline them towards substance abuse, seems a wise course. Pardon my cynicism as I say that trying to sell that idea to the American public would be political suicide, though. A valid point, but this is more a sociological response to the pressures placed on them which then begs the question. Do we, as a society perpetuate these addictive behaviors by allowing them to go on and by not providing the adequate solutions to such issues? Instances would be "Vegas", it is sensationalized and publicized. even here in the UK, and if such establishments were clamped down on, one would logically (if not mistakenly) assume that this would have a positive impact on addiction rates through gambling, this is assuming that the local law enforcement is able to completely squash any illegal forms. Edited: *Missed this* Shiva.Onorgul said: » There are many other alternatives out there with at least comparable success rates, but whenever we talk about addiction support, not only do we habitually refer to AA, but that's also the only option frequently doled out by the US court system (I can't speak to what the UK in general or Scotland specifically do, but please enlighten if you know). We use a National Health Service which tend to deal with this, we have addopted the model (Health Professionals at least) of drug treatment and Therapy, a link can be found below ~ We also have something called "Ask Frank" which is a hotline you can call into and seek intervention before the issue grips you too hard (I have no numbers to see if this works). http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/drugs/pages/drugtreatment.aspx Las Vegas is a surprisingly bad example. It used to be a place where the addicts went. Now it's a tourist spot. The gambling addicts are still there in large numbers, but you're much more likely to find them in the old, small casinos rather than the big glitzy ones we see on TV.
So, yeah, sensationalizing the casino probably isn't a very big deal, honestly. Consider alcohol addiction, one of the most common substance abuses in human history, if not the most common. Here in the States we had Prohibition, whereby one saw no advertising or sensationalizing of alcohol of any sort and all legal, public means of acquiring alcohol were shuttered. It did not have a meaningful impact on addiction rates. It goes contrary to what our common sense wants to believe, but whether Budweiser slaps a big pair of titties on their beer cans or not, people are going to drink it. Moreover, many people are able to gamble, drink, and even use hard substances like opioids without becoming addicted, so for all the glamorizing associated with the legal options, I'm not sure that curtailing that would accomplish much. It further goes to prove, though, that mere availability is not the driver behind addiction. If we want to quash the problem, it seems the better option would be to promote things like regular mental health check-ups (which is a hard sell in a country where people practically have to be forced by their employer/insurer just to get an annual physical) and provide resources for people with problems. The UK and the US have a serious problem of loneliness among 20-somethings and retirees: it's hardly a wonder they're both demographics that tend to turn to addictive habits. Edit: Oh yeah, regarding AA (and why I have a low opinion of it), it's mostly a faith-based and shame-based system and it favors the disease model of addiction. "You're powerless," etc. Lots of things that basically strip an adherent of their confidence. Hence why I consider it cultish. Better treatment lies with cognitive-behavioral therapy administered by a trained professional, since that seeks to figure out why you're using (or gambling or whatever) and how to avoid it or replace with better alternatives. It has its pitfalls, too, but seems closer to the mark from what I've read.
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: » Las Vegas is a surprisingly bad example. It used to be a place where the addicts went. Now it's a tourist spot. The gambling addicts are still there in large numbers, but you're much more likely to find them in the old, small casinos rather than the big glitzy ones we see on TV. I think you miss understood me, probably my own fault as my explanation was far from my intention. My point was if you are able to completely remove this from society i.e all forms whether legal or illegal gambling, would this negate the addiction, or would the subject move onto another form i.e substance abuse. We can attribute the factors of gambling etc to these things being sensationalized, but you have a valid point in as much as people will do as people do. Interestingly you mentioned that 20's somethings are noted as being "lonely", this seems to coincide with the age most people who are going to become addicts, start on these ares and acquire these issues, aside from serious issues like PTSD and whatnot. Cerberus.Conagh said: » My point was if you are able to completely remove this from society i.e all forms whether legal or illegal gambling, would this negate the addiction, or would he subject move onto another form i.e substance abuse. I'd need to check literature, but given how often I've read about addicts switching from one substance/activity to another (sex addicts becoming alcoholics, that sort of thing), I'd be inclined to think that the specific addiction is arbitrary after a certain point. I worry about assuming that is the case, though, because that basically buys into the debunked "gateway drug"/slippery slope hypothesis. Cerberus.Conagh said: » Interestingly you mentioned that 20's somethings are noted as being "lonely", this seems to coincide with the age most people who are going to become addicts, start on these ares and acquire these issues, aside from serious issues like PTSD and whatnot. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Oh yeah, regarding AA (and why I have a low opinion of it), it's mostly a faith-based and shame-based system and it favors the disease model of addiction. "You're powerless," etc. Lots of things that basically strip an adherent of their confidence. Hence why I consider it cultish. Better treatment lies with cognitive-behavioral therapy administered by a trained professional, since that seeks to figure out why you're using (or gambling or whatever) and how to avoid it or replace with better alternatives. It has its pitfalls, too, but seems closer to the mark from what I've read. Cognitive behavioral reconditioning is the most effective long term method for treatment of addiction. By addressing the subjects dependency on this addiction to fulfill x in their life giving them coping strategies or showing them how it is not helping them etc can influence them away from such patterns of behavior. The Main pitfall, and the key issue we as a society are yet to address is the contributing factors that caused it in the first place i.e. bad job, poor social structures etc, which is something the AA looks at, unless the cognitive methodology your treatment services has incorporated a help group so they have a support structure in place, in which case this may circumvent however this would need to be done to coincide and not at the same time to have any desired effect. But now we are leaving the realms of what the article touched on and are blending schools together (which would be the most effective method, it doesn't directly address the findings in this article). Cerberus.Conagh said: » But now we are leaving the realms of what the article touched on and are blending schools together (which would be the most effective method, it doesn't directly address the findings in this article). The article I posted was someone's blog, after all. It doesn't purport to have all the answers (well, it does, but writers are arrogant like that). I just found it interesting because it offers a model of addiction that actually seems to resolve the conflicts I've seen between the others. It appears you have some experience, however limited, with this, so if there's more to say or discuss, please do. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Cerberus.Conagh said: » But now we are leaving the realms of what the article touched on and are blending schools together (which would be the most effective method, it doesn't directly address the findings in this article). The article I posted was someone's blog, after all. It doesn't purport to have all the answers (well, it does, but writers are arrogant like that). I just found it interesting because it offers a model of addiction that actually seems to resolve the conflicts I've seen between the others. It appears you have some experience, however limited, with this, so if there's more to say or discuss, please do. The article itself does to some degree touch on areas that have been over looked or unexplained by other models, however it has fundamental flaws in it's bases and test studies. For instance, the test with rats assumes we can attribute that addiction is based on primal needs, how does one then explain the issues that crop up with the rich and famous? This is a cognitive response to stimuli, not an instinctual one, I would hardly say using a comparison between rats and people is a fair or remotely useful study due to the differences in brain chemistry. The key issue: This then touches on the schools of intelligence and whether Humanity truly has the monopoly on this(Monkeys, Pigs + dolphins are close for example) but then using the above it should be used as a study to test if addiction is a Stimuli Basis i.e increased stimuli = positive reinforcement but it seemingly tries to attrition itself as a "Communal Study" which we can't do that with rats as a direct comparison to humans, it over simplifies matters by far. Unless we are going to assume that 95% of humanity are simply driven by primal or subconscious decisions then this brings an ENTIRELY different level or realm of thinking which is ethically frowned upon Edit: the point I'm trying to make isn't a particularly easy one for me to put into words so if I've missed my mark let me know. The problem concerning the rich and famous appears to be alienation, which is fairly similar to isolation. That goes straight to the thrust of what the writer suggested and what seemed to be implied by the rat studies (how social are rats, actually?).
The real counter to this conclusion are the people with at least the appearance of a good social life but who still rely on addiction. The questions are multiple. Is their social life actually good for them or are they hiding something? It's a problem we regularly see with gay and transgender people, among others: feign happiness while being torn apart because you're not getting what you need. If their social life is good, what then is the "problem"? I posited a lousy job could be a factor, implying a lack of purpose/satisfaction. Dopamine and serotonin seem complicit in the whole mélange, but deficiencies in either have many different effects. Low dopamine has been implicated in Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia, for instance, and one would be quite misguided to conflate either of those with addiction. Your question about the rich and famous is interesting, though, because I think we have certain cultural prejudices going on. When most people think of addicts, I suspect they think of the poor and downtrodden (regardless of where they ascribe cause and effect). Studies of welfare recipients show, though, that only about 1% test positive for substance use and, of course, use is not the same thing as addiction. Poor people appear to socialize more in my experience, but whether it's "good" socialization or a facade is uncertain. I've read conflicting reports, particularly with regards to the current crop of long-term unemployed here in the US and how the internet has changed their social lot compared to previous recessions. Another thing the article fails to do, and it's a rather big problem, is actually define addiction. We all sort of have an idea, but one of the major debates in studies of addiction is in ascertaining what constitutes it. If I get drunk every night but am able to abstain without withdrawal symptoms (physical or psychological), am I an alcoholic or not? My example of the fellow who talked about his gambling winnings: although I only interpreted it as a warning sign rather than a guarantee, what would suggest he's an addict? As it happened, he plays the penny slots, so it would take quite a long time for him to reach financial ruin even if he spent 6 hours a day in the casino. Shiva.Onorgul said: » The problem concerning the rich and famous appears to be alienation, which is fairly similar to isolation. That goes straight to the thrust of what the writer suggested and what seemed to be implied by the rat studies (how social are rats, actually?). The real counter to this conclusion are the people with at least the appearance of a good social life but who still rely on addiction. The questions are multiple. Is their social life actually good for them or are they hiding something? It's a problem we regularly see with gay and transgender people, among others: feign happiness while being torn apart because you're not getting what you need. If their social life is good, what then is the "problem"? I posited a lousy job could be a factor, implying a lack of purpose/satisfaction. Dopamine and serotonin seem complicit in the whole mélange, but deficiencies in either have many different effects. Low dopamine has been implicated in Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia, for instance, and one would be quite misguided to conflate either of those with addiction. Your question about the rich and famous is interesting, though, because I think we have certain cultural prejudices going on. When most people think of addicts, I suspect they think of the poor and downtrodden (regardless of where they ascribe cause and effect). Studies of welfare recipients show, though, that only about 1% test positive for substance use and, of course, use is not the same thing as addiction. Poor people appear to socialize more in my experience, but whether it's "good" socialization or a facade is uncertain. I've read conflicting reports, particularly with regards to the current crop of long-term unemployed here in the US and how the internet has changed their social lot compared to previous recessions. Another thing the article fails to do, and it's a rather big problem, is actually define addiction. We all sort of have an idea, but one of the major debates in studies of addiction is in ascertaining what constitutes it. If I get drunk every night but am able to abstain without withdrawal symptoms (physical or psychological), am I an alcoholic or not? My example of the fellow who talked about his gambling winnings: although I only interpreted it as a warning sign rather than a guarantee, what would suggest he's an addict? As it happened, he plays the penny slots, so it would take quite a long time for him to reach financial ruin even if he spent 6 hours a day in the casino. The failing part of any "Model" is how it defines addiction. Without doing so it can ignore if not completely miss place something as addiction. I would say I am chemically addicted to caffeine, however I am not addicted to other behaviors/substances, is this because coffee is seen as socially acceptable and I am bought into the shame model used by the AA? (which coincidentally makes the very structure laughable as a use of treatment because if it worked originally, the issue would never have cropped up assuming only 1 variable mattered in this instance) or do I have a medical disposition to caffeine only? Is it really an addiction due to the low levels of addiction and lack of withdrawal affiliated with it? Cerberus.Conagh said: » The failing part of any "Model" is how it defines addiction. Without doing so it can ignore if not completely miss place something as addiction. I would say I am chemically addicted to caffeine, however I am not addicted to other behaviors/substances, is this because coffee is seen as socially acceptable and I am bought into the shame model used by the AA? (which coincidentally makes the very structure laughable as a use of treatment because if it worked originally, the issue would never have cropped up assuming only 1 variable mattered in this instance) or do I have a medical disposition to caffeine only? Is it really an addiction due to the low levels of addiction and lack of withdrawal affiliated with it? I think the questions to ask here are... Is it a habit? Do you have control over it or does it control you? Does or will it promote any hindrance to your life? Asura.Jezzus said: » Cerberus.Conagh said: » The failing part of any "Model" is how it defines addiction. Without doing so it can ignore if not completely miss place something as addiction. I would say I am chemically addicted to caffeine, however I am not addicted to other behaviors/substances, is this because coffee is seen as socially acceptable and I am bought into the shame model used by the AA? (which coincidentally makes the very structure laughable as a use of treatment because if it worked originally, the issue would never have cropped up assuming only 1 variable mattered in this instance) or do I have a medical disposition to caffeine only? Is it really an addiction due to the low levels of addiction and lack of withdrawal affiliated with it? I think the questions to ask here are... Is it a habit? Do you have control over it or does it control you? Does or will it promote any hindrance to your life? Ah but you see, that alone defines addiction. But would we include things that may be "signs" of addiction as apposed to recreational i.e the rats used a recreational drug but were not addicted, but used it because they were bored? The very definition itself destroys the pretence of a model. Cerberus.Conagh said: » Asura.Jezzus said: » Cerberus.Conagh said: » The failing part of any "Model" is how it defines addiction. Without doing so it can ignore if not completely miss place something as addiction. I would say I am chemically addicted to caffeine, however I am not addicted to other behaviors/substances, is this because coffee is seen as socially acceptable and I am bought into the shame model used by the AA? (which coincidentally makes the very structure laughable as a use of treatment because if it worked originally, the issue would never have cropped up assuming only 1 variable mattered in this instance) or do I have a medical disposition to caffeine only? Is it really an addiction due to the low levels of addiction and lack of withdrawal affiliated with it? I think the questions to ask here are... Is it a habit? Do you have control over it or does it control you? Does or will it promote any hindrance to your life? Ah but you see, that alone defines addiction. But would we include things that may be "signs" of addiction as apposed to recreational i.e the rats used a recreational drug but were not addicted, but used it because they were bored? The very definition itself destroys the pretence of a model. With all respect, you are Mind F***ing the topic. lol Asura.Jezzus said: » With all respect, you are Mind F***ing the topic. lol That's the nature of psychology and therefore why this is not something you can label. Asura.Jezzus said: » I think the questions to ask here are... Is it a habit? Do you have control over it or does it control you? Does or will it promote any hindrance to your life? And that's an inherent problem we have right now in sorting out cause and effect with obesity: are people addicted to food? It's pretty common to talk about a carbohydrate addiction, if only because it's basically the easiest food macro (other than alcohol -- yes, a poison based on carbohydrate is considered a macro-nutrient, *** if I know why) to eliminate, but is it really? Getting past the obvious need to eat, it's still a habitual thing, such as sharing food when socializing. I know some people who only smoke tobacco when socializing (me, for instance), ditto people alcohol (also me). Do I control food? My waistline says no, but I can't live without some, so where do we draw the line? Hindrance is another one. I'm probably in better health than most people in spite of being overweight and, indeed, would not have as much muscle mass if I didn't feed the calories into it. Clearly one can live without caffeine or cocaine, but one can live without Twinkies and asparagus, too. Even things that are predominantly healthy to eat, like broccoli, come with serious caveats sometimes (goiter). Before we exclude food and try to limit addiction to just substances and maybe gambling, there is documentation proving people are addicted to sex (masturbating 16 hours a day and basically destroying the skin of your genitals is not what I'd call "healthy sexual interest") and, like food, it's not reasonable to suggest one can live without sex, regardless of what religious dogma may claim. Are video games or working out in the gym addictions? They can stimulate the reward center of the brain and we've heard stories about people taking both too far (steroid users effectively destroying their body being just one aspect of the latter), but the jury remains undecided. Even a really simple definition like "Something that disrupts your life" doesn't work. A nurse working 70 hours a week is having his life disrupted by his job but it's surely not an addiction, even if he draws considerable pleasure from his work. It's a problem. Oni....
Deep personal background here. I am 70, I was a beatnik, a hippy, a biker. I have had friends who were addicted to heroin, cocaine, alcohol, and several forms of speed. Personally I have only been addicted to nicotine and caffeine. Kicked both. There are several hooks. Compulsive personality disorder can lead to addiction to chewing gum for ***** sake. I knew people who were hocked on needles, as in playing with, flagging, even if they only held water. Some are genitally predisposed to alcoholism. Don't take my word for this, search it. Alcohol is a CNS depressant. IMHO those who have this genetic flaw are susceptible to other CNS depressants, like opioids. And then we have the scourge of perception opioid addiction leading to heroin addiction currently reaching epidemic proportions in this country. Many of these people live in warm, loving, connected environments. Rat heaven if you will. And die in them. Do not forget methadone. A painkiller so potent, so addictive, that it can't be kicked cold turkey without serious risk of death. There is a 100% cure for heroin addiction, apomorphine. William Burroughs, a great writer and almost a professional junkie took the apomorphine cure and wrote about it. If there are no chemical hooks why can a chemical cure it? Oh... apomorphine is illegal in the USA. Methadone is a prescription drug. This is not to say the article you linked is wrong. I believe it right as one marker in a spectrum
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.